Astorga v Villegas

G.R. No. L-23475. April 30, 1974

Makakintal, C.J.
Facts:
The present controversy revolves around the passage of House Bill No. 9266, which
became Republic Act 4065, otherwise Known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila. When
House Bill No. 9266 was sent to the Senate for its concurrence, it was referred to the Senate
Committee on Provinces and Municipal Governments and Cities headed by Senator Gerardo M.
Roxas. The committee favorably recommended that instead of the City Engineer, it be the
President Protempore of the Municipal Board who should succeed the Vice-Mayor in case of the
latter's incapacity to act as Mayor. On May 20, 1964, substantial amendments to Section 11 were
introduced by Senator Arturo Tolentino which were approved in toto. The amendment
recommended by Senator Roxas does not appear in the journal of the Senate proceedings as
having been acted upon.On July 5, 1964 Senator Tolentino issued a press statement that the
enrolled copy of House Bill No. 9266 signed into law by the President was a wrong version of the
bill actually passed by the Senate. On July 31, 1964 the President of the Philippines sent a
message to the presiding officers of both Houses that he was officially withdrawing his signature.
Upon the foregoing facts, the Mayor of Manila, Antonio Villegas, issued circulars to the
department heads and chiefs of offices of the city government to disregard the provisions of
Republic Act 4065. Then Vice-Mayor, Herminio A. Astorga, filed a petition with this Court on
September 7, 1964 for "Mandamus, Injunction and/or Prohibition with Preliminary Mandatory and
Prohibitory Injunction" to compel respondents Mayor of Manila, the Executive Secretary, the
Commissioner of Civil Service, the Manila Chief of Police, the Manila City Treasurer and the
members of the municipal board to comply with the provisions of Republic Act 4065.
Issue: Whether or not entries in the journal could be consulted to determine whether or not the
bill had been duly enacted
Held:
Yes. The journal of the proceedings of each House of Congress is no ordinary record. The
Constitution requires it. While it is true that the journal is not authenticated and is subject to the
risks of misprinting and other errors, the point is irrelevant in this case. This Court is merely asked
to inquire whether the text of House Bill No. 9266 signed by the Chief Executive was the same
text passed by both Houses of Congress. Under the specific facts and circumstances of this case,
this Court can do this and resort to the Senate journal for the purpose. The journal discloses that
substantial and lengthy amendments were introduced on the floor and approved by the Senate
but were not incorporated in the printed text sent to the President and signed by him. The court
declared that the bill was not duly enacted, as indeed both the President of the Senate and the
Chief Executive did withdrew their signatures therein. In the face of the manifest error committed
and subsequently rectified by the President of the Senate and by the Chief Executive, for this
Court to perpetuate that error by disregarding such rectification and holding that the erroneous
bill has become law would be to sacrifice truth to fictionand bring about mischievous
consequences not intended by the law-making body.
Moreover, the law-making process in Congress ends when the bill is approved by both
Houses, and the certification does not add to the validity of the bill or cure any defect already
present upon its passage. In other words it is the approval by Congress and not the signatures of
the presiding officers that is essential. Thus the (1935) Constitution says that "every bill passed
by the Congress shall, before it becomes law, be presented to the President." In Brown vs. Morris,
the Supreme Court of Missouri, interpreting a similar provision in the State Constitution, said that
the same "makes it clear that the indispensable step is the finalpassage and it follows that if a bill,
otherwise fully enacted as a law, is not attested by the presiding officer, other proof that it has
'passed both houses' will satisfy the constitutional requirement."